NCAA Practice Investigation update

How is not supporting the large local news outlet that seems to be doing its best to tear down the program stupid?

the print link (no revenue for the bad guys): http://www.freep.com/print/article/20100203/SPORTS06/100203033/U-M-rege… Unfortunately, I had to use the link above to find this. I'll look into this on my own, but does anyone know how to obtain the print-friendly revenue-neutral version without having to go through the main site over there to get it? I don't think a boycott is stupid. Paraphrasing Ghandi, "It may be true that the impact of what we do is small, in which case it is all the more important that we do it." Boycott is the only way readers have to vote on objectionable content in a top-down situation such as a major newspaper, at least without actually contributing aid and comfort to it. Unethical editors like controversy, and anything other than a boycott only strengthens their case. Edit. Is it just me? Having read this (print version), it seems that once again, the content is skewed for editorial purposes. Did UM itself not ask for the NCAA investigation? This information is perversely absent from the revue of events in the article. Having created this story with the bogus exposé in August, this paper now spins the consequenses for maximum controversy and drama. Reading this reminds me again why, if we must subject ourselves to this indignity, we should at least use the print version to do it.

It's been too long since I've read a balanced article like that Detroit News piece. Excellent background on the situation giving people an opportunity to decide for themselves.

I am totally baffled by your comment. Do you have no recollection of the years of negative press from the Freep? Was it not beyond the pale even before the latest misleading and vindictive articles? Have you never read Drew Sharp? Do you not recall the things he has said about UM....eg saying on national TV that John Navarre "peed in his pants" during rivalry games. Then Rosenberg, somebody from the Freep with a clear, documented agenda vs. UM is chosen by his editor to do an "unbiased" investigative report--an editorial decision that's been called "malpractice" by the editor of the New Republic. Then they bring in the NCAA, and now imply that the NCAA has found some unspecified violation without having any concrete evidence to back this up. They say the UM meeting was "hurriedly" called, implying some kind of panic over the report. Why did they not add the clarifications given in the Detroit News.... (1) that the meeting was just informational and (2) that just having sufficient reason to investigate does not mean any major violation would be be found? Why have they never given equal time to a discussion about what goes on in practice at other universities? Clue: these questions are rhetorical. I could go on.... But, given the history of the FreePress, I am completely baffled how you could think it is stupid to avoid giving revenue to them by reading their links? Jeez....I personally think we should be listing and boycotting all their sponsors....spreading the message to not buy anything listed in their want ads, etc. But, if you personally want to post revenue-enhancing links to the Freep, I respect your right to do so. A free press is a good thing. The FreePress is not.